I personally couldn't disagree more, but in the end it doesn't matter. Courses around the country aren't going to be ripping out discatchers and installing bullseye baskets any time soon. For me two or three putting is a reasonable expectation on regulation baskets and I see no reason to make that one aspect of the game any more difficult. Watching pros throw to a smaller basket would also not be appealing to me at all. Longer, more challenging courses on the other hand would be a welcome change. Playing a par 65 course is more challenging and more fun for me than playing a par 54, because the is entire course is what you're playing against not just the basket. It is also more impressive, and likely more attractive to newer players and audiences, to watch pros play a super tough course and shoot -10 rather than a -3 on a par 54 with skinny baskets. That's my 2 cents.

The desire to see the impossible catch or home run in other sports doesn't really compare for me, b/c for me and maybe it's just me, b/c the beauty of this game is that I can go out and play the same courses that I watched the top level players destroy and try to accomplish the same thing using the same equipment. I can't do it, but that's why I practice. I can make a direct apples to apples comparison to the game that I'm playing and the game that the elite players are playing with the same equipment and conditions. That is impossible for other sports, espescially team sports b/c I'll never have Tom Brady trying to hit me on an out route or Jason Verlander trying to get me swing at a slider on the outside corner of the plate. That's an experience I like to watch, but I'll never be able to actually relate to. No average Joe will. But any average Joe can pick up a few discs and head out to park, usually for free, and play this great game then see how their game stacks up.

Pros putt very well, but making putting even more difficult than it already is is silly. It's the hardest part of the game, IMO, and does anybody think that making an already difficult part of the game more difficult would attract new players? That's kind of like thinking that more people would enjoy fishing if you could only use a canoe and a cane pole, b/c it's more difficult. Sure catching a striped bass on a cane pole would be hard to do and if you actually did it it'd be impressive, hell, even watching somebody else do it would be impressive.... but more likely people would get super frustrated before they caught their first one and give up. I know I would. I feel the same way about skinny baskets on courses.

Putting doesn't need to be any more difficult for anybody, new player, seasoned veteran or first time spectator to realize 'wow, these guys are good.'

End rant now and back to work.

It is ok with me if you disagree so please don't take this as a personal response.

I am 100% with you about the benefits of higher caliber courses, and I agree that they would be arguably a bigger difference in the game as a whole. However, new players would be at least as frustrated by hitting all the trees on the way to the basket on a 700 foot wooded par 4 that is a decent hole for a good player as for missing a putt because they don't have the skill to throw one on line.

I don't think that putting being harder makes the game any less accessible. Rec players will still make 30 footers sometimes. They will just be happier when they do. It also doesn't change what you love about being able to challenge the same course that the elite players do. The main problem as I see it is that the effective green size in disc golf makes mediocre approaches and mediocre putts get rewarded with birdies too often. This prevents a reasonable definition of par, comparisons between courses, and other things that people find interesting about sports like golf (from which disc golf is and always will be derived no matter how much people want to differentiate them).

One thing that's hard to assess between sports is the overall difficulty of one shot. Is the "skill value" of the average ball golf shot easier, tougher or the same for people to execute? You would need to assess that value before determining whether the difference between players 10 shots apart in either sport is the same, wider or narrower. My thought would be that the average shot in ball golf is tougher than DG which would widen the skill range differences even more than they already appear.

I would agree with golf being tougher than DG. In DG, we throw the disc with just our arm which most people can be accurate with, while golf uses a 3'+ long stick with a flat edge to hit a round ball with just fractions of degrees to work with and be reasonably accurate.

What about a hybrid approach to the future where there are specs established for a new smaller target class where the basket is allowed to be up to maybe 5" higher like MJ's idea for a smaller target zone height and the outer chains can be up to 5" closer to the pole? These baskets when sold new would be an appropriate option for blue and gold level courses but the current baskets would not be obsolete.

We would make sure existing targets could be modified to meet the new specs by raising the basket on the pole and removing their outer chains should the course owner prefer. Courses with these targets would become favored for top level competitions but wouldn't be required for Majors until enough top level courses had this type of basket.

Just like duffers can go play Pebble Beach from the tips, rec players would be able to throw on these new baskets but the majority of courses at their level would still have the current style baskets. The new style baskets would be cheaper to make and likely would be widely purchased for new courses. They would also be cheaper for educational use since a smaller target area would be good for practicing skills.

Plus some designers are way ahead of this idea. In my town, good luck finding a course with more than 1 basket with a flat 10m turf circle around it, free of obstacles.

My point I think being that course design should remain relatively free in this sense. If putting needs to be more challenging, it seems like something with the target is the best approach.

Curious as to why a small target is a better approach than more obstacles? The point of making putting harder is to conform to the ball golf notion that 2 putts should be the norm, correct? Well, if we are going to conform to ball golf then why not look at it this way: the challenge in putting in ball golf is the slope of the green and the path your ball must roll in order to land in the cup. In disc golf, our "slope" is the air route that the disc must take. So changing the air route that a disc must take (going around obstacles) would be the closest equivalent, correct?

Note that I am not saying that this should happen, I'm just trying to understand people's perspectives. All of this is arguing is silly in my opinion though, in the end nothing will change and nothing should change other than courses being designed for gold level play rather than gold level players playing on red/blue courses.

What about a hybrid approach to the future where there are specs established for a new smaller target class where the basket is allowed to be up to maybe 5" higher like MJ's idea for a smaller target zone height and the outer chains can be up to 5" closer to the pole? These baskets when sold new would be an appropriate option for blue and gold level courses but the current baskets would not be obsolete.

We would make sure existing targets could be modified to meet the new specs by raising the basket on the pole and removing their outer chains should the course owner prefer. Courses with these targets would become favored for top level competitions but wouldn't be required for Majors until enough top level courses had this type of basket.

Just like duffers can go play Pebble Beach from the tips, rec players would be able to throw on these new baskets but the majority of courses at their level would still have the current style baskets. The new style baskets would be cheaper to make and likely would be widely purchased for new courses. They would also be cheaper for educational use since a smaller target area would be good for practicing skills.

Curious as to why a small target is a better approach than more obstacles? The point of making putting harder is to conform to the ball golf notion that 2 putts should be the norm, correct? Well, if we are going to conform to ball golf then why not look at it this way: the challenge in putting in ball golf is the slope of the green and the path your ball must roll in order to land in the cup. In disc golf, our "slope" is the air route that the disc must take. So changing the air route that a disc must take (going around obstacles) would be the closest equivalent, correct?

Note that I am not saying that this should happen, I'm just trying to understand people's perspectives. All of this is arguing is silly in my opinion though, in the end nothing will change and nothing should change other than courses being designed for gold level play rather than gold level players playing on red/blue courses.

One reason is that the physics of disc flight prevents much lateral motion on short distance throws. I personally think that the combination of wind and elevation is the best analogy to slope on a ball golf green. The other problem is that because we are allowed to straddle our stance, it would take ridiculous obstacles to prevent pros from making essentially all the same putts they do now.

I've found that for me, the biggest difference between rec, local pro, and top level pro is Mid-Range accuracy. From 100-200' they are way more dead-on accurate than other levels.

I'm not saying they don't have big arms, and don't putt lights out. But i haven't been noticeably impressed by anyone I've played with's drives or putting (unless they are just lights out one day) But the mid-range work of the better players always impresses me, and makes it obvious why they are better than me.

edit: ha, my attempt to get back on the original topic, cause i was getting tired of re-treading the same argument on baskets again and again. And i've been involved in a lot of the basket argument.

One reason is that the physics of disc flight prevents much lateral motion on short distance throws. I personally think that the combination of wind and elevation is the best analogy to slope on a ball golf green. The other problem is that because we are allowed to straddle our stance, it would take ridiculous obstacles to prevent pros from making essentially all the same putts they do now.

Fair enough, and that is definitely a legit argument against obstacles

Definitely why I said almost as big a gap. It'd take a hell of a day for it to happen - but that chance is so small that its not a whole lot huger than the 800 vs 980. That compression of strokes at an elite level is just... sickening. So. close. Yet so far.

That compression of strokes is exactly why it's much easier for a 980 rated player to beat a 1030 rated player than it is for an 800 to beat a 980. All it might take for the 1030 to lose is one bad hole because they're only a few strokes ahead to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckychucky

What happened to just making harder greens?

Precisely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

Doesn't matter. More cluttered greens might make the upshot tougher. But if the player always has a shot at the basket from within the circle (which is a design guideline), the putting constant doesn't change.

That's not what I think he was saying. Put stuff in the way near the basket so that if you don't have a clear lane you aren't going to be looking at a great chance to make the putt. Yes, the clear shots will still be easy, but you'll have fewer and fewer clear shots at the hole.

The odds of having a gently breaking right-to-left uphill putt in golf (generally considered the easiest to make) are small - odds are you're going to have to work around the slopes to get your putt into the hole. Golf greens aren't just all flat with nothing there - the trouble continues onto the greens, and the golfer who can position his ball below and slightly to the right of the hole has an easier time of it than the guy who's always above the hole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

In ball golf, they have looked at hole and ball size and would change it if necessary. But there's no indication their parameters need changing.

They've never really considered making it smaller, but relevant to this discussion they did make it larger and what they found was that it gave an even bigger advantage to the good putters.

It was the opposite of what they thought would happen, but it makes sense: when a good putter missed a putt it was by a little. The slightly larger hole captured it. When a bad putter missed a putt it was by enough that the larger hole still didn't capture it.

So if the same holds true of going to Bullseyes, then you'd discover that shrinking the size of the target would do more to level the playing field than to separate it or spread it out.